JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21st June, 2002 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C.

3. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the suit has been filed for execution of the compromise decree in the earlier suit between the parties and therefore considering the provisions of section 47 read with Order VII, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. the plaint is liable to be rejected.

4. Referring to Clauses 4 and 10 in the compromise decree passed on 19th March, 1987 in Regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 1987 between the parties to the proceedings, it was sought to be contended that in terms of Clause 4 the parties had agreed to enjoy in common the open space by the side of the road and had agreed not to obstruct for such enjoyment to each other and further in terms of Clause 10 of the said decree it was agreed that in case of necessity for enforcement of any of the said terms of the said decree the same can be obtained by way of execution of the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document